| 1:06 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I thought your site was fixed.
However, on that DC your homepage has gone on a phrase search for it.
| 1:25 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I thought your site was fixed.
However, on that DC your homepage has gone on a phrase search for it."
Exactly. And I find it very strange, because this is the first time I see that since last year, if I recall correctly.
| 6:02 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
184.108.40.206 sure is doing a lot of fliping around. Just checked it with the following searchs:
site:domain.com - got 761 results, which is up from what it has been.
Got as far as 448 results before I got the "omitted results" prompt.
site:www.domain.com - Gave the exact same results
site:domain.com -inurl:www gave zero results, which is much better as it has been showing several hundred results, both a mix of true sups and other pages that are current and should not be sup.
I am far from an expert and not sure what all this means in the scheme of things, but thought I would share the changes that I saw.
| 6:20 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have a Google search where most of the results are for pages that no longer exist or the whole site no longer exists. There should really only be one result returned.
For years, the search returns that one result and at least 20 supplemental results (for pages and sites that no longer exist). There are two slightly different versions of the supplemental list depending on which datacentre you use.
On the new 220.127.116.11 datacentre, the same search now returns 1 to 12 of about 40 000, and most of the 12 results are pages that I have not seen being returned for this query before, and are very "fuzzy" matches (the 18.104.22.168 DC had a similar results set the other day). Most of those 12 results are for supplemental pages that Google has known about for more than a year, but which never show up in results, and which all now have a cache date less than 2 weeks old.
The kicker is that when you click the "Repeat search with omitted results included" link, you then get ONE result (shown as "1 to 1 of about 15").
Now that is odd, but it does show that Google is capable of recognising what junk really needs to be thrown away. Hopefully an engineer can isolate that filter and deploy it on other datacentres...
| 7:56 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Unfriendly Datacenters ;-)
I wish to point out 3 sets of DCs which I consider unfriendly to my site. My suggestion to the friends at GooglePlex is to burn those unfriendly DCs..just like that :-)
216.239.53.*** Show Canonical Problem within my site
216.239.57.*** Show Canonical Problem within my site
64.233.187.*** Keep showing DMOZ Title for my homepage
What about you? any unfriendly DCs of your site you wish to share, mentioning the reason?
| 8:02 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It seems like at this time there are at least seven "mini-Googles" out there all doing slightly different things....
| 9:49 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Wouldn't it be cool if one of those seven actually showed consistent, appropriate handling of Internet web sites and web searches?
A guy can dream...
| 9:52 pm on Mar 30, 2006 (gmt 0)|
My site is coming out of supplemental hell....however when I search 'more from site', my homepage is listed fifth, not first. Does this mean that my index is still not fully recovered?
| 5:16 am on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thanks To Google Crawl-Indexing Team
Good morning Folks
I have nemtioned in my previous post msg#:66 of this thread, 2 DCs which were showing canonical problem within my site.
It seems that the friends at Google Crawl-Indexing Team had read my post and corrected the canonical problem of my site on those two DCs while I was in bed ;-)
And for that..allow me to start this wonderful morning with my famous song...
Oh Google.. You Are Simply The Best, Better Than All The Rest :-)
| 6:45 am on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>>>Wouldn't it be cool if one of those seven actually showed consistent, appropriate handling of Internet web sites and web searches?
You would have thought even by accident Google might get one of them right.
But nope - total and utter mess.
Hmmz - I think I will do a check for my site again on a "www.domain.com" phrase check:-
Spam spam spam spam spam spam spam - oh there is an internal page in position 750.
Still no improvements.
| 7:00 am on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Good morning Dayo_UK
Maybe you should start a new campaign just like that of last year :-)
Listen Google - I will say this only another 100 times. The canonical url for my site is the homepage with the www - I have done the 301 - this is the page with the most backlinks - it is the page that should rank for the company name search. Etc."
| 7:18 am on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I would probably have to start at number 1000000000000000000000000000000000 and count down to give Google any chance :)
| 7:21 am on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Today's Gorgeous DC Set
Relax..fetch your Danish brand cappuccino and study your site(s) on today's DC set. Isn't she lovely ;-)
| 8:36 am on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Having just recovered from a bout of food poisoning, I will decline that offer and those DC's are horrendous (for me at least!)
| 8:53 am on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Google surely has to move forward with the inclusion of newer sites.
The only place I can see this on is 22.214.171.124.
| 12:50 pm on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> You would have thought even by accident Google might get one of them right. <<
On 126.96.36.199 with &filter=0 I see them get it completely right for the very first time in over two years.
| 12:55 pm on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Yes, supplemental issues are much much better for the sites you monitor - I agree.
But Google has not been able to correctly determine root pages for lots of sites that went missing yet.
On that DC there are no ranking changes - just perhaps a knob that has turned the supplemental index off on some searches.
Whether the forthcoming PR update will cure this is anyones guess.
On one hand I think that as PR is supposed to be continually applied to the serps I cant see that making a difference.
On the other hand the exported PR might still have some impact on how the structure of a site (eg site:domain.com - domain.com is first, and in allinurls etc) is calculated.
I just wish they would get on with it.
| 2:43 pm on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Hello Reseller and Dayo_UK,
Currently my site is out of canonical issue and supplementals but seems to have some issues like some of the old pages still showing in index which are not existing (404) and ranking for my domainname which is still on 5th page. I think if Google rectifies this problem then I think site will rank better.
| 3:19 pm on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Something else wierd happening now, Doing a UK only search in google.co.uk is bringing up mainly US sites, I have never seen that before.
| 7:36 pm on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
These datacenters show different serps than all other datacenters on the mcdar tool.
even other serps than
| 10:53 pm on Mar 31, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Munster: Funny you should say that, I see just the same here in the USA:
I have said this before, I say it again:
What I have been noticing is far too much weight being given to .co.uk and .ca URL's in the USA serps.
So a common search would produce:
keyword.com (A valuable site to USA searchers)
keyword.co.uk (Of no value in the USA)
keyword.ca (Of no value in the USA)
I would expect this on google.co.uk and google.ca, but not on Google.com.
It is making a mess of the serps with valuable sites that were in the top five results dropping down or off the page.
| 2:06 am on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
301 redirect from non-www to www finally takes place for my site (6 months wait).
Thank you Google.
| 2:37 am on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
For anyone that's noticed/interested in the reporting of our sites this is our 3rd day of movement in cached pages on :
-caches are now consistant
-173k of pages up from 102k yesterday and still caching.
-99% of our site are new pages and receiving redirects from old pages.
Still early days, but at least things are happening consistantly now.
our results in the serps are still "tragic" [ again e.g for 1 keyword result we are No 90 for a previously stable No 1 result ] and for unique page content we are way down the serps.
just repeating - we have compounded problems with a previous robots.txt hack attack that knocked us out for 180 days
One thing - we have another bunch of sites that are not yet fully compliant [ weighty pages , too many links etc ] and these are not performing well in this update. It might be interesting to compare sites on your network that have been cleared up versus sites that need a bit of work [ please be kind to us Google - if you're reading this :) we were waiting to see how our tidied up sites performed first - before migrating the changes over ]
| 5:55 am on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Matt Cutts Moves to Google NASA Office
It seems that our good friend at GooglePlex Matt "Inigo" Cutts is leaving Google Search Quality Team and moving to a new Google office at NASA!
Here is what the Danish newspaper "Copenhagen Corner" wrote yesterday 31st March 2006:
As part of Google's plan to build up 1 million square feet of offices at NASA Ames Research Center near Mountain View, Calif., the two entities will cooperate on research projects such as large-scale data management, nanotechnology, massively distributed computing and the entrepreneurial space industry.
Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt has announced that Google-NASA office shall be headed by senior engineer Matt Cutts.
We wish Inigo good luck and God bless. So long Matt and thank you for friendship and support to the webmaster communities for many years.
| 6:29 am on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Good morning Folks
Talking about odd behaviour. This set of DCs show different serps than the rest DCs for my test keyphrases related to online marketing & advertising.
| 9:21 am on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Matt Cutts Moves to Google NASA Office |
Reseller, I liked it. But my favorite is newly released Google Romance, the contextual dating sevice!
| 10:27 am on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone had any issues with multple domains 301'd to one domain? I seem to be having this problem on one of the sites I work on, but not others.
| 10:58 am on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
For those of you that are in a sandbox please check your site(s) on these two datacenters. I have quite a few sites that are appearing sandbox free on these two datacenters.
| 4:37 pm on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The two data centers are
| 4:57 pm on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
How old are those sites - The only site I launched after November time has suddenly lost rankings accross the DC.
| 5:06 pm on Apr 1, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Do you see any canonical improvements on the 2 DCs tedster has just mentioned?
| This 193 message thread spans 7 pages: < < 193 ( 1 2  4 5 6 7 ) > > |